Ninth Circuit Rejects Trump DOJ Bid to Segregate California Ballots

A divided Ninth Circuit denied the Justice Department’s emergency request to segregate ballots linked to roughly 20,000 people it labeled likely noncitizens.

A divided federal appeals court on Friday, October 30, 2026, rejected the Trump administration’s latest emergency attempt to make California segregate mail ballots associated with roughly 20,000 people the federal government identified as likely noncitizens.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the Justice Department’s request for an injunction while its appeal proceeds. Judges Mark Bennett and Gabriel Sanchez formed the majority in the 2-1 decision; Judge Patrick Bumatay dissented. The ruling leaves California’s existing ballot-processing system in place four days before the November 3 midterm elections.

What the Justice Department requested

The Justice Department asked California and Los Angeles County to identify and set aside vote-by-mail ballots connected to a federal list compiled from voter and immigration records. It wanted officials to verify the listed voters’ citizenship before tabulating those ballots. California disputed the list’s reliability and said processed ballots become anonymous, making them impossible to reconnect to individual voters.

The administration alleged that allowing any noncitizen ballot to be counted would violate a federal law prohibiting noncitizens from voting in federal elections. The court’s majority treated that as an allegation requiring proof, not an established finding that the people on the list were ineligible or had voted.

Why the appeals court refused relief

The majority said the government had not shown that federal law displaced California’s procedures for challenging voter eligibility or gave the Justice Department authority to direct an election already underway. It also upheld the district court’s finding that the method used to produce the October list was not credible enough to support the requested emergency remedy.

The judges said a new segregation process could create immense hardship, risk disenfranchising eligible voters and put the tabulation system in jeopardy. Los Angeles County told the lower court that its system has no function for isolating ballots from designated voters and that last-minute changes could threaten the December 11 certification deadline. The majority said the requested relief was simple only in the abstract.

The dissent and the next legal step

Bumatay argued that the federal government had shown a likelihood of success and that separating the disputed ballots would protect lawful voters while citizenship checks occurred. He accepted the administration’s concern that potentially unlawful votes could dilute eligible citizens’ votes and described segregation as a limited remedy.

The decision follows U.S. District Judge David O. Carter’s October 28 refusal to issue a temporary restraining order. It is also distinct from an October 26 Ninth Circuit decision dismissing an earlier appeal because the district court had not yet ruled. Friday’s panel reached the renewed emergency request after Carter issued his order.

What the ruling does not decide

The majority did not rule that noncitizens may vote; California and federal law both prohibit that. It also did not make a final determination about every name on the government’s list. Instead, the panel held that the administration had not carried the demanding burden required for a mandatory injunction that would change election procedures after voting had begun.

The Justice Department can seek further review, including at the U.S. Supreme Court, but Friday’s order provides no stay or segregation requirement. The underlying lawsuit remains unresolved. The appellate ruling decides only the administration’s request for immediate relief while the election is in progress.

Sources and image credit

What the Justice Department requested

Why the appeals court refused relief

The dissent and the next legal step

What the ruling does not decide